Easterly v. Thomas

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

J. RONNIE GREER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a prisoner's action for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Tennessee law arising out of a series of incidents on March 14, 2019, during his confinement in the Knox County Detention Facility [Doc. 30]. Now before the Court are Defendants' motion for the Court to determine whether to place the video footage of a cavity search of Plaintiff under seal [Doc. 40], Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) [Docs. 41, 42], and Defendants' motions for a protective order and an order to stay all discovery [Docs. 58, 68]. The Court will address these motions in turn based on the substance thereof.

I.SEAL VIDEO FOOTAGE

First, in support of their motions to dismiss, Defendants filed a USB drive that includes body camera video footage (“Body Cam Footage”), a video clip from the Body Cam Footage, and a two-hour, ten minute, and fifty-nine second video of Plaintiff in a restraint chair [Doc. 39]. Defendants have also filed a motion for the Court to determine whether to keep the Body Cam Footage and video clip under seal [Doc. 40]. In this motion, Defendants note that the Body Cam

2

Footage and video clip show Plaintiff unclothed and state that while Plaintiff, through counsel, refused to join in the motion, Defendants do not oppose the Court filing the Body Cam Footage and video clip under seal [Doc. 40 at 1-2]. Plaintiff did not file a response to this motion.

Under Local Rule 26.2(b), “[c]ourt records . . . shall not be placed under seal” without a showing of good cause. E.D. Tenn. LR 26.2(b); Phibbs v. Rev. Recovery Corp., No. 3:16-cv-156-TWP-HBG, 2017 WL 10439789, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. May 8, 2017) (noting that “[i]n this District, discrete redacting of documents or selective sealing is generally preferred over the wholesale sealing of a document”). The Sixth Circuit has also recognized a “‘strong presumption in favor of openness'” of court records. Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983)). The party seeking to seal court records therefore bears a “heavy” burden of overcoming this presumption, and “‘[o]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.'” Id. at 305 (quoting In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)).

Due to the nature of portions of the Body Cam Footage and the video clip, which the Court has reviewed and will summarize as accurately as possible below to the extent that they may be relevant to Plaintiff's claims, Defendants' motion for the Court to determine whether to keep the Body Cam Footage and video clip under seal [Id.] will be GRANTED to the extent the Clerk will be DIRECTED to keep these filings [Doc. 39, Body Cam Footage and Video Clip^[1] under seal.

3

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 710 F.2d at 1179 (providing that a Court may file things under seal to protect “certain privacy rights of participants, ” among other things).

II. MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Both Defendant Knox County and the individual Defendants have filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff's claim on various grounds [Docs. 41, 42]. Plaintiff filed responses in opposition to these motions [Docs. 48, 49], and Defendants filed replies [Docs. 54, 55]. With the Court's permission [Doc. 73], Plaintiff filed sur-replies [Docs. 74, 75].

The Court will first summarize the applicable standard of review, Plaintiff's factual allegations in support of his claims in his amended complaint, and the relevant materials Defendants have filed in support of their motions to dismiss, before addressing the substance of Defendants' motions to dismiss and the related motions.

A. Standard of Review

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim for relief is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. A claim for relief is implausible on its face when “the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679. When considering a motion to dismiss, all factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007).

4

“But a court deciding a motion to dismiss may consider ‘other materials that are integral to the complaint, are public records, or are otherwise appropriate for the taking of judicial notice.'” Hancock v. Miller, 852 Fed.Appx. 914, 919-20 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing Wyser-Pratte Mgmt. Co. v. Telxon Corp., 413 F.3d 553, 560 (6th Cir. 2005) and McLaughlin v. CNX Gas Co., LLC, 639 Fed.Appx. 296, 298 (6th Cir. 2016)). Also, “when videotape footage exists, the reviewing court need not credit the version of a party who asserts facts ‘blatantly contradicted by the videotape; rather it should view the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.'” Cunningham v. Shelby Cty., 994 F.3d 761, 763 (6th Cir. 2021)

B. Amended Complaint Allegations

Plaintiff's amended complaint is fifty-six pages long, and it is the operative complaint for purposes of the pending motions to dismiss [Doc. 30]. In this pleading, Plaintiff sets forth his factual allegations in three separate sections. Specifically, Plaintiff first summarizes his factual allegations in five pages of numbered paragraphs under the heading “Nature of Action” [Doc. 30 at 4-9]. The amended complaint also includes a thirteen-page section of numbered factual paragraphs under the heading “Factual Allegations” [Id. at 12-25], as well as a twenty-seven-page section labelled “Claims for Relief, ” which includes sub-headings and numbered paragraphs containing factual and/or legal allegations to support each claim for relief [Id. at 26-53].

However, the three separate sections of the amended complaint that include factual allegations do not include the same factual allegations. Specifically, Plaintiff phrases his factual allegations differently in these three sections and sometimes appears to modify them from section to section, ^[2] and the “Claims for Relief” section includes and/or references some, but not all, of the

5

factual allegations included in the “Nature of Action” and “Factual Allegations” sections [Compare id. at 4-9 with id. at 12-25 with id. at 26-53].

Accordingly, the Court considers only the facts Plaintiff included or referenced in his counsel-filed amended complaint under the heading “Claims for Relief” as those on which he relies to support each of his claims under the relevant sub-headings and will reference the facts he included in his “Factual Allegations” section only to the extent they provide context to the allegations he clearly references or includes in the claim's sub-heading in the “Claims for Relief” section. In other words, the Court will not search the amended complaint, which counsel filed, for other factual allegations that may support Plaintiff's claims but that he does not include or reference in the relevant claim sub-heading in his “Claims for Relief” section. The Court will summarize these factual allegations before summarizing the relevant materials Defendants filed in support of their motions to dismiss, where they may be relevant to Plaintiff's claims.

1.Claim One - Excessive Force Against Defendant Officer Thornbury

a. Plaintiff's Allegations

Plaintiff's first claim is for excessive force against Defendant Thornbury [Id. at 26-28], and it arises out of his allegation that on March 14, 2019, while he was confined in the Knox County Detention Facility waiting for a hearing on a parole violation and a trial on other charges, Defendant Officer Thornbury banged on his cell door, waking him up [Id. at 13]. After Defendant Officer Thornbury ordered Plaintiff's cell mate to get on the floor, this Defendant ordered Plaintiff to get on his stomach on the floor [Id.]. Plaintiff started to comply, but before he could do so, Defendant Officer Thornbury “grabbed Plaintiff's left arm and jerked him violently off the top

6

bunk onto the floor” in a manner that caused Plaintiff to hit the back of his head, which dazed him and caused him “great pain” [Id.]. Then, when Plaintiff was on his stomach, Defendant “Officer Thornbury struck Plaintiff's lower back and kidney hard with his knee, and cuffed him, ” all while Plaintiff did not resist this Defendant [Id.]. After this incident, Plaintiff had headaches and a lump on his head, and he was nervous and often unable to sleep due to fear that officers would come to his cell and jerk him out of bed in his sleep [Id.]. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Thornbury's use of force in this event was “unnecessary and gratuitous” and “clearly excessive and unconstitutionally disproportionate to the circumstances” [Id. at 27].

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Thornbury used excessive force in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment in this incident and this “caused Plaintiff to suffer (a) bodily injuries, (b) excruciating pain and suffering, and (c) severe emotional suffering and mental anguish, despair, and hopelessness” [Id. at 27-28]. Plaintiff claims that he is entitled to punitive damages...